Legal question

[Curly]

For either scenario the proper citation would be for trespassing, in my opinion, even though you may not have actually set foot on the private property. Either that or they could cite you for negligently shooting from the road. Whether it was truly negligent would be up to the judge.

Tresspassing really doesn't fit.  Negligently shooting from the road wouldn't fit either since the fenceline is a good 20 feet from the pavement.  The only one that really seems acceptable in my mind is littering. (The shooter would be littering his bullet and the animal he left there.) Wastage apparently fits but just isn't logical since almost no one eats coyotes..........

I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?



Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[Curly]

In nature, nothing goes to waste.

Right.  But throwing them in the garbage for a trip to the landfill is wastage. 

Anyway, it does sound like bigtex agrees that it wouldn't be Tresspassing which is what my original question was about.  I never would have dreamed that wastage would fit.  So, thanks again go out to Bigtex for setting things straight....you are a valuable asset to the forum.

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[bigtex]

I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?

The citations I know of were issued regardless of the landowner, simply leaving the coyote to lay. These citations aren't only issued in Grant and Adams Counties but can be issued statewide, I just know of them being issued in those two counties. People need to remember that it's an officer's duty to enforce all fish and wildlife laws, we can't just say "well it's a coyote and nobody cares" because I can guarantee you somebody does care, it's not the most important thing out there but it is still illegal to waste coyotes. Don't like it? Then get the law changed. But as officer's we are responsible for enforcing the law.

[bobcat]

All coyotes that are shot are "wasted" then. So, it could be said that coyote hunting is virtually illegal in this state.

[grundy53]

The law does not separate between species. It's simply "wasting wildlife," per state law "wildlife" means those in the animal kingdom, coyotes are in the animal kingdom. You can't waste a coyote because it's a predator, it falls under the animal kingdom and per state law, you can't waste wildlife.

Yes that's the law. So why is no one required to eat the meat of a coyote? If you leave a quarter of a deer or elk in the field, you would be cited for wastage. Can you cite a single case where a Washington hunter was cited for leaving the meat of a coyote in the field?

As I've said officers write for it in Grant and Adams Counties which are some of the most popular counties in the state for coyote hunting. If it is the law then you can cite for it, doesn't mean all officers will, it just means they can. And like I've said, I've konwn officers that have, and I would have no problem with an officer doing it.

Citing someone for "wasting" a coyote is a total chicken feces move.

sent from my typewriter

[Bob33]

All coyotes that are shot are "wasted" then. So, it could be said that coyote hunting is virtually illegal in this state.

Blues here I come! By next May I should have at least 200 bonus points for turning in coyote wasters.

[grundy53]

I bet officer Myers would write you a ticket for wasting a coyote...

sent from my typewriter

 

[Bob33]

People need to remember that it's an officer's duty to enforce all fish and wildlife laws, we can't just say "well it's a coyote and nobody cares" because I can guarantee you somebody does care, it's not the most important thing out there but it is still illegal to waste coyotes. Don't like it? Then get the law changed. But as officer's we are responsible for enforcing the law.

That's an interesting argument, and ironic that on another active thread WDFW Enforcement is getting trashed for doing that very thing: enforcing the law with respect to someone fishing without a license, and not using discretion when warranted.

[Curly]

Citing for wastage on a yote ranks right up there with citing a special needs kid for fishing without a license

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[stevemiller]

Read a lot of this thread but not all,Question maybe Bigtex can answer this.If he is standing on the side of the road isn't he in fact trespassing by being on the owners easement?The property owner pays taxes to the center of the road,If he owns property on both sides of the road well he actually owns the entire road that runs through his property and just allows or has to allow easement.So anyone that stops and does anything other than drive through would be tresspassing?Is this thought even close? 

[Curly]

Read a lot of this thread but not all,Question maybe Bigtex can answer this.If he is standing on the side of the road isn't he in fact trespassing by being on the owners easement?The property owner pays taxes to the center of the road,If he owns property on both sides of the road well he actually owns the entire road that runs through his property and just allows or has to allow easement.So anyone that stops and does anything other than drive through would be tresspassing?Is this thought even close? 

I can answer that question for you.  In my line of work I deal with easements, right of ways, and property lines all the time.

If you are on a public road, the road is almost always within a public right of way.  The fenceline is usually the right of way line, ; so if you are on the road side of the fence then you or likely on public r/w.

Now when you start talking about private roads is usually when you are dealing with easements.  And they can vary a lot.  Sometimes the road is centered in the easement, sometimes not.  It all depends on how it is setup.

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

What would constitute NOT wasting a coyote, BT? Keeping the pelt? What if the pelt were mangy? I would think that someone fighting a wasting charge in court for a coyote they let lay in the field wouldn't be too hard-pressed to win it. I can't imagine a court in the country that would consider not eating one a waste of game, so the pelt would be the only issue. I'm referring only to coyotes legally killed with landowner permission or on public land. Thanks for your input, BT.

Since the offense is an infraction there is no jury. It is simply you and the judge who decides if you wasted it or not.

Unfortunately WA's law does not define what is wasting and what is not, it simply says you can't waste wildlife. I personally don't like that there is no definition. Many states lay out in their law what parts must be taken of the animal in order for the hunter to comply with the law, WA does not do that. So it simply leaves it up to the officer, and then if somebody fights it, the judge to decide if the animal was wasted.

So for me, to completely eliminate a wastage charge I say to completely remove the coyote from the field. I don't want to say that removing the pelt will clear you because another officer may see a skinned out coyote and immediately flag it as wasting. Again, this is where I believe a clearly written wasting wildlife law needs to be written as far as what needs to be taken and what can stay in the field.

The ambiguity of the WA law in comparison to the wasting laws of other states would definitely be a tool for defense in front of a judge against the infraction, especially when talking about coyotes and especially if the pelt is mangy. Thanks for the info, BT. As always, you're a really great resource for us. 

[stevemiller]

Yes very ambiguous indeed.I can agree with what BT said about the wasting of big game law.As stated earlier in this thread what exactly is waste?If something gets left something else will eat it,If you leave the lower limbs behind and they are supposed to uphold the letter of the law with no discretion(giving a ticket to a mentally disabled person while fishing with a broken pole and using jerky for bait)could a ticket be given for leaving such items behind as hide,gut,legs? 

[pd]

In nature, nothing goes to waste.

 

[lokidog]

For either scenario the proper citation would be for trespassing, in my opinion, even though you may not have actually set foot on the private property. Either that or they could cite you for negligently shooting from the road. Whether it was truly negligent would be up to the judge.

Tresspassing really doesn't fit.  Negligently shooting from the road wouldn't fit either since the fenceline is a good 20 feet from the pavement.  The only one that really seems acceptable in my mind is littering. (The shooter would be littering his bullet and the animal he left there.) Wastage apparently fits but just isn't logical since almost no one eats coyotes..........

I'd be interested to know if the citation style in Adams and grant counties were for instances like this where the shooter was not showing respect toward the landowner?



Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

If anyone shot something, ANYTHING on my property without permission, they are trespassing and I will put as much anergy/effort as I can in prosecuting them to the fullest extent.  Plus it's just a dumba*** thing to do.     I don't care whether they set a foot on my property or not.